If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are currently viewing our forums as a GUEST.

This allows you to read, but not participate in our discussions.

This also prevents you from downloading attachments and seeing some of our specialized sub-forums.

Registration is free and painless and requires absolutely no personal information other than a valid email address.

You can register for our history forums here. [this reminder disappears once you are registered]

Comment

Was there enough 5.56mm available to be issued to cope with such a nationwide outbreak of criminality?

Apart from the Gurkhas who proved their mettle already at Amritsar, would White British troops even obey an order to open fire on 'unarmed' civilians?

Have you ever been in Great Britain? Many "white" British troops aren't white. I saw a guard at Buckingham Palace a few years ago from the Paras, and he was black.
It doesn't take many rounds to end a riot. Think about it, why do people riot? Most don't do it to correct injustices, they do it becaue it's fun! They get to act like fools, break windows, steal expensive stuff and gang up and beat up defenseless people. All you have to do is identify a few ringleaders...the ones who are yelling and urging on everyone else. A few headshots and all the people around them get splattered with blood, bone and grey matter. All the people there for the "fun" decide that it's not fun anymore and go home to watch the TV that they stole yesterday. You now have a much smaller, more manageable group to arrest or chase out of the streets.

Comment

Have you ever been in Great Britain? Many "white" British troops aren't white. I saw a guard at Buckingham Palace a few years ago from the Paras, and he was black.
It doesn't take many rounds to end a riot. Think about it, why do people riot? Most don't do it to correct injustices, they do it becaue it's fun! They get to act like fools, break windows, steal expensive stuff and gang up and beat up defenseless people. All you have to do is identify a few ringleaders...the ones who are yelling and urging on everyone else. A few headshots and all the people around them get splattered with blood, bone and grey matter. All the people there for the "fun" decide that it's not fun anymore and go home to watch the TV that they stole yesterday. You now have a much smaller, more manageable group to arrest or chase out of the streets.

Disagree.

I've seen crowds near rioting, and very scared police.

And why? Because the whole deal is, there are a LOT more rioters. If they become angry and overrun the police, they will kill them all.

I always thought that too, why don't they just shoot them? How about snipers on buildings looking for the ringleaders, the guys with Molotov cocktails in their hands? That's what they did in Maiden, in Kiev. Shot some rioters from the roofs.

As we see, it worked out very, very, very poorly and now they have a civil war.

First the huge crowd of thousands kills the few hundred police, then they have a civil war. Normal progression.

Now I understand that the policing game is to keep a lid on it at all costs, if they possibly can. Sometimes it gets away from them.

Comment

Well, there's at least two types of rioting. There are the political riots/demonstrations that brought down the Iron Curtain. Participants in those know why they're there and have a purpose. I'm talking about the LA Rodney King/Ferguson type riots where people just need an excuse for acting stupid.

Comment

And why? Because the whole deal is, there are a LOT more rioters. If they become angry and overrun the police, they will kill them all.

I always thought that too, why don't they just shoot them? How about snipers on buildings looking for the ringleaders, the guys with Molotov cocktails in their hands? That's what they did in Maiden, in Kiev. Shot some rioters from the roofs.

As we see, it worked out very, very, very poorly and now they have a civil war.

First the huge crowd of thousands kills the few hundred police, then they have a civil war. Normal progression.

Now I understand that the policing game is to keep a lid on it at all costs, if they possibly can. Sometimes it gets away from them.

It also depends what the cause of the rioting is and how serious you are about putting it down. The maiden example was a political uprising against the government, the sort of thing that can and did quickly spiral into revolution. Things like the UK riots or what happened in Missouri earlier this year are just mindless violence for the sake of mindless violence. People are willing to die for a political cause, not so much for a new TV or new shoes.

"Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

Comment

If the thin Plod line at Grosvenor Square in 1968 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLRL6qYSDuI
had given way and the rioters had broken in to the US Embassy with the intention to ignite and raze it, then the US Marines would have defended it with their silver-plated Colt 45s and their could have been a bodycount worth talking about!

Comment

It wouldn't matter. The rioters would tire of their protests, the police (and military if necessary) would break up and arrest the leaders.
Without cohesive leadership and some sort of plan riots always succumb to the police who are organized and well led.

This is a case, as Black Sabbath put it:

If you listen to fools, the mob rules.

Comment

The police initially lost control in these riots, no doubt. A key turning point was the transfer of police from Scotland, mainly Glasgow. The Glasgow police do not mess about and the sight of these guys armed with a big stick was one notch down from soldiers on the streets. If that had not worked quickly I do think the troops would have been turned out and rightly so. I do not think there would have been much hesitation about firing at scum bag looters at this stage and the public would have been glad someone was fighting back.

Comment

Have you ever been in Great Britain? Many "white" British troops aren't white. I saw a guard at Buckingham Palace a few years ago from the Paras, and he was black.

I hope this is not a race theory. Pretty sure you need to be a citizen to join the UK army, so any 'colored' troop would be English. To my understanding it would be quite hard for anyone from another country to enlist. However, I know there are special cases, and I am not sure what the situation is in ex-colonies I don't know how likely they would be shoot rioters.

Also, lived in Belfast; British troops are just fine shooting unarmed civilians.

Wisdom is personal

Comment

I hope this is not a race theory. Pretty sure you need to be a citizen to join the UK army, so any 'colored' troop would be English. To my understanding it would be quite hard for anyone from another country to enlist. However, I know there are special cases, and I am not sure what the situation is in ex-colonies I don't know how likely they would be shoot rioters.

Also, lived in Belfast; British troops are just fine shooting unarmed civilians.

What are you talking about? Did you even read the post that I was responding to? The OP was talking about "white" British troops. I responded that not all British troops were white. And by the way, no you don't have to be a British citizen to join the army. There are plenty of Jamaicans, Fijians, Australians and a whole host of other countries.

Comment

I hope this is not a race theory. Pretty sure you need to be a citizen to join the UK army, so any 'colored' troop would be English. To my understanding it would be quite hard for anyone from another country to enlist.

Citizens of the UK and the Commonwealth nations can join the British army, as can citizens of the Republic of Ireland.